User talk:Ykraps

Epic Barnstar
I came across the HMS Pearl (1762) article the other day while looking at a couple of other Niger Class frigates. Well done on getting it to FA. Coldupnorth (talk) 12:10, 12 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you. It's nice when one's contributions get noticed. I see you have recently created HMS Aurora (1766) and HMS Aeolus (1758) so thanks too for those. Keep up the good work. --Ykraps (talk) 21:10, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of St Catherine's Hill, Dorset
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article St Catherine's Hill, Dorset you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of GhostRiver -- GhostRiver (talk) 18:01, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of St Catherine's Hill, Dorset
The article St Catherine's Hill, Dorset you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:St Catherine's Hill, Dorset for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of GhostRiver -- GhostRiver (talk) 21:00, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Bournemouth airport
Hi

As you point out out, Bournemouth, Poole and Christchurch are separate parishes. The Christchurch article covers the town and civil parish of Christchurch, which does not include Hurn, which is a separate parish. If you look at https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/business-government/products/election-maps and select civil parish boundaries you can clearly see this. Postal addresses are not a good indication of geographic location for a number of reasons. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 17:15, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me here but I have replied on the Christchurch talk page, where this discussion belongs[].--Ykraps (talk) 12:39, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Napoleonic naval sources
Hi, this is rather out of the blue, but I note that when it comes to Napoleonic British naval FAs you have quite a few. I've recently been working to improve Charles Richardson (Royal Navy officer) towards that level, but am worried about my sourcing. More specifically the age of some of the sources used. Might you have any comments on their quality?

Thanks anyhow for your work on the period; having written HMS Resistance (1782) I am a particular fan of your HMS Roebuck (1774)! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:16, 11 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi, Congratulations on getting the article to A-class, which is no mean feat. Sources for a Featured Article must be "high quality" and "reliable", and I would say that the sources you have used are both. Reliable sources refers primarily to science and medicine articles where ongoing research continually throws up new theories. The discovery of new archaeological evidence or primary sources can alter our understanding of history but it doesn't happen so often and the consequences are rarely as extreme. Agematters says that, in regard to historical events, older sources could be more desirable. Some of the sources you have used are quite old but they are reliable secondary sources. and many of them are cited in tertiary sources. I had a quick look for more recent information on Charles Richardson but couldn't find anything. If there aren't any more recent sources, then that is a strong indication that there is nothing new to say on the subject. In short, I don't think you need to worry. If you need more reassurance, check out the biogs at Featured articles, and see what sources have been used. Ping me when you've nominated it and good luck. --Ykraps (talk) 18:15, 12 April 2022 (UTC)


 * PS. I see you have an impressive number of Good Articles to your credit and so I am confident that you are ready for an FAR. --Ykraps (talk) 18:49, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the explanation. I've gone ahead and nominated it at FAC - should be interesting! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 22:26, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I am 'real life' busy at the moment but hope very much to be able to take a look over the next week or two. --Ykraps (talk) 06:00, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I've made a start. --Ykraps (talk) 20:18, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for all the work you put into that review. I'm not sure if every reviewer would have been so willing to go through as much of the article as you did, considering the amount of faux pas you found along the way. It's clear that my spot checks on referencing weren't good enough, but with your kind assistance the article has been vastly improved. If you ever need any assistance with an article or review yourself, please feel free to ask. I'm in your debt! Thanks again, Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:50, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have to confess that the work I put in, is as much to do with my own desire for job satisfaction as anything else, although achieving FA is all the more rewarding if one has to work a bit, I feel. Don't beat yourself up too much over the "faux pas" either, they were quite minor. Good luck with the rest of the process. --Ykraps (talk) 16:58, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of St Catherine's Hill, Dorset
The article St Catherine's Hill, Dorset you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:St Catherine's Hill, Dorset for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of GhostRiver -- GhostRiver (talk) 18:41, 12 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Great news. Thank you. --Ykraps (talk) 18:51, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Redaction
Hi. I have redacted the edit in question. I couldn't get to it sooner as I was away for most of the weekend. In future, a complete list of administrators who can handle these matters is at Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to handle RevisionDelete requests. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  12:34, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and thanks for the list of admins. I don't know how there can be so many and I only know of two! I suppose that's probably a good thing.--Ykraps (talk) 05:12, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Clotworthy Upton (Royal Navy officer)
— Maile (talk) 12:02, 5 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I was wondering who changed the hook without consultation or consensus and so looked into it. FYI, this is the incriminating edit.  Illegitimi non carborundum!  Andrew🐉(talk) 13:22, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * And I see some discussion at WP:ERRORS. Again, no consultation ... Andrew🐉(talk) 16:41, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, odd how the word bastard is deemed to have negative connotations but a word that literally means illegal, being used to describe someone born out of wedlock, isn't. As a bastard myself, I know which I'd prefer. It's an unfortunate consequence of DYK that your hook will likely be tampered with. Still, that isn't the most irritating editing I've had to endure there [] What a way to ruin a perfectly good pun! With regards to the barony/baronetcy argument, I'm afraid I don't know the difference but the source say baronetcy so that's what I went with. Thanks for drawing my attention to it.--Ykraps (talk) 21:56, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 07:05, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

DYK nomination of HMS Chichester (1785)
Hello! Your submission of HMS Chichester (1785) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! PCN02WPS ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 17:08, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

DYK for John Yelland
— Maile (talk) 00:02, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Aigle-class frigates
Hi, I'm currently writing up HMS Resistance, the sister of your GA HMS Aigle. Having done a little research very little seems to be written on the history or reasoning behind the class, unlike many others. As I'm sure you've seen Winfield provides very little, and Gardiner not too much more bar the armament changes. You didn't happen to find out anything else about the history of the class itself did you? Thanks, Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 19:16, 19 July 2022 (UTC)


 * , I've got a feeling that the Aigle-class frigates were copies or at least inspired by French frigate Aigle (1782) which was captured in the same year. I don't know if I have a reliable source for that. I will have a good look when I have more time at the weekend. You could add a bit about the development of the 36-gun frigate in general. Are you intending to write an article on the Aigle class? Also, to which Gardiner do you refer? or ? Regards --Ykraps (talk) 15:47, 20 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I guess you're talking about the former as the latter wasn't listed in my library. --Ykraps (talk) 15:59, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The Gardiner I was referring to is in fact . I've checked Warships of the Napoleonic Era and, but it seems that only Heavy Frigate covers the class. I haven't used The Sailing Frigate before, would you recommend it? Re the class article, looks like it would be quite a simple one to construct. Might do Amazon-class frigate (1799) first, but will add to list. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:06, 20 July 2022 (UTC)


 * If you’re interested in frigate development, The Sailing Frigate is well worth a look. The photos show the changes much better than a description alone but perhaps not as clearly as a simple line drawing. It wouldn’t be a history in ship models then of course and it’s the photos that give the book such visual appeal. It’s quite a small, available in paperback only and at a RRP of £17, quite pricey but I found a new copy for around £12 which is far more palatable. The book doesn’t say anything about the Aigle class in particular but does say that Henslow was quite conservative in his designs and his changes were mainly increases in size rather than anything radical.
 * I would imagine then that the Aigle-class frigates were pointy bowed with square focsle bulkhead and beakhead, square sterned and with an open waist. I don’t know if the skids were fixed or not at the time. Aigle (1801) later had her bow and stern altered in accordance with Sepping’s recommendations. I don’t know if the same happened to Resistance, and I don’t know if the waists were filled in at the same time. I don’t have access to my books at the moment so can’t back that up with RS yet. --Ykraps (talk) 12:43, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll look to get my hands on a copy of Sailing Frigate. Assuming you don't have copies of First Frigates or Heavy Frigate, feel free to enquire if you think they might hold any useful information for your work! I think I'll stick to putting only directly relevant information on design/construction into the Resistance article, but will take your advice and add a little more general background on 36-gun frigates in the eventual Aigle class article. What's your source for the Aigle changes, by the way? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:13, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Aigle's 1817 lines are here, by the way. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:18, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I searched for Aigle's drawings but, for whatever reason, drew a blank. Long story short: I couldn't find anything on the Aigle class specifically. As you already knew, Resistance was wrecked in 1803, too early to get the Sepping's treatment but I suppose you could mention that half the class were upgraded. :) The rounding of the bows began as early as 1778 apparently so I'm not sure about that one but the drawing suggest this wasn't done to Aigle. The skids were fixed from 1790 and the filling in of the waist started quite a bit later in 1805. (Gardiner, Robert (2012) p.87) If you want to discuss the origins and development of the 36/18 in general, Gardiner (2000) has a bit on this on p.49 and Winfield (2008) on p.136. Gardiner (2012) p.68 says that on 21 October 1778 the Admiralty dictated that the Navy Board should not propose the construction of smaller frigates  and instead concentrate on 12pdr frigates of 36 or 38 guns. (British frigates couldn't match the armament and performance of French frigates at that time) The Navy Board countered on the 29 October that the scantlings should be strong enough to take 18pdrs and the 36/18 and 38/18 became the standard from then on. In Feb 1801, St Vincent replaced Spencer as first lord and (presumably in a bid to save money) began demanding that frigates should not exceed 870 tons (the norm by then was around 1000) (Gardiner (2012) p.88) but Aigle and Resistance had already been ordered and were nearing completion. I didn't know you'd already started writing the Resistance article and only stumbled on it this morning. It looks in good shape to me and I agree that much of the above should probably go in the Aigle class article. Keep up the good work! --Ykraps (talk) 07:44, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll do as you suggest. Incidentally I've already written about the bigger/smaller frigate debates while discussing the second iteration of the Perseverance class. Interestingly Gardiner suggests that they navy didn't actually save any money by shrinking the ships! Hope to finish Resistance today or tomorrow. As an aside, do you know anything about good topics? It wouldn't be difficult to get all three Aigle class articles up to a similar GA standard, but I'm not sure if a small topic like that would qualify. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 12:31, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Interestingly, Gardiner (2012) doexn't say Vincent's decision had anything to do with money either. He portrays Vincent as a romantic traditionalist who believed wars were won by 'superior discipline and training, not technology'. Although that section of the book is entitled 'Quantity before Quality' and there is plenty of evidence that Britain, requiring such a large navy, was always looking at ways to reduce the cost. With regards to the size of Good Articles, according to the criteria, the reviewer should consider: I would try to convince the reviewer that the article contains all the information available and perhaps refer to some existing shorter GAs.--Ykraps (talk) 07:12, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Whether the article is a stub (which cannot qualify). My view is that this should be based purely on the amount of useful information it contains rather than a fixed size but Did You Know uses over 1500 characters as a guide.
 * 2) Whether it is 'broad in its coverage'. Again, my view is that you can only write as much as is available in reliable sources and that there are some subjects that are naturally small.


 * Have completed Resistance. The class article is near the top of my to-do list now. I provided quite the chunk of construction/design information for Resistance, and if you feel like any of it might be useful for Aigle too please do steal it! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 10:14, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks good. I will certainly steal some of it for Aigle. It might be worth mentioning that the trend for lengthening frigates was to increase the speed. Best --Ykraps (talk) 05:04, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oops, apologies for not responding to this sooner, completely missed it. My Gardiner reference re lengthening doesn't particularly mention speed, do you have another source? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:57, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * should fit the bill. I will send you the appropriate passage verbatim if you have your email enabled, otherwise I'll briefly paraphrase here. Regards --Ykraps (talk) 20:14, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, have added to Resistance. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 21:01, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. --Ykraps (talk) 05:00, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, Ykraps! I've seen a message that you've sent me an email about HMS Aigle, but I've not received the email itself. If you are asking for anything specific, please re-send it to me at tanparcau@btopenworld.com. As regards the issue of lengthening, it is perfectly correct that lengthening a ship was - and remains - an effective way of increasing a ship's speed (all other factors remaining constant). Regards, Rif. Rif Winfield (talk) 08:04, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

I have posted an article on Aigle-class frigates to mainspace. --Ykraps (talk) 08:44, 19 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Currently in the very exciting post-house-move period in which I have no functioning Wi-Fi and EE occasionally decides I don't need my data/phone line anymore for inexplicable reasons and cuts them off. Hopefully I'll be released from this purgatory in four or five days; if you don't mind I'll have a look through the article then! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 10:41, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Chichester (1785)
Gatoclass (talk) 12:02, 21 July 2022 (UTC) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 13:37, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Anglese
Per your instructions the other references to the brig in question have been changed and if anyone cares to question it then they have been directed to you. 2603:8000:D300:D0F:5180:3B1C:76CB:C1C8 (talk) 07:55, 12 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't recall instructing you to do anything, I merely reverted the mistakes you introduced into HMS Emerald (1795) here []. If you have come here to discuss the name of the brig in the action of 7 April 1800, you should be aware that the source clearly states that it was called "Anglese". If you have another source that spells it differently, you can discuss it here or on the relevant article talk page. --Ykraps (talk) 09:01, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of HMS Romulus (1785)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article HMS Romulus (1785) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Pickersgill-Cunliffe -- Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 11:22, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of HMS Romulus (1785)
The article HMS Romulus (1785) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:HMS Romulus (1785) for comments about the article, and Talk:HMS Romulus (1785)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Pickersgill-Cunliffe -- Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 19:01, 29 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Ykraps (talk) 06:15, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

TFA for Weymouth, Dorset
I have nominated Weymouth, Dorset to be today's featured article on a non-specific date. You are invited to comment on the nomination by clicking here. Z1720 (talk) 01:12, 10 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't have any comments as such. Are you asking me to support the nomination? --Ykraps (talk) 07:14, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I would love to see Weymouth as TFA but, having never been involved with the process before, I am unsure of the etiqutte or what is expected of me. --Ykraps (talk) 07:56, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey Ykraps, I send notifications to major contributors when I nominate a TFA as a courtesy. Sometimes major contributors check the blurb for accuracy and ensure the article is still in a good enough condition to run as TFA. Editors also comment on the date the article is nominated for (an editor might suggest that the article run on the anniversary of the city's incorporation, for example). All editors are invited to support/oppose/neutral/comment on TFA nominations based on their opinion. Hope this answers your question, please ping me if there are further questions. Z1720 (talk) 16:23, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I did check the blurb and it looked okay. I'll take a look at the rest of the article and leave some comments at the nomination page. Thanks. --Ykraps (talk) 07:17, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Weymouth, Dorset scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the Weymouth, Dorset article has been scheduled to rerun as today's featured article for April 30, 2023. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page blurb, you're welcome to do so at Today's featured article/April 30, 2023, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. If you wish to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article, you can do so at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/April 2023.

I suggest that you watchlist Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks and congratulations Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:18, 15 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I will keep an eye on the article and the errors page as you suggest. --Ykraps (talk) 09:17, 18 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you today for the article that you helped to survive! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:41, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks Gerda, and thanks for all the contributions you make to Wikipedia. --Ykraps (talk) 05:56, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Source review
Hi, I was wondering whether you might be kind enough to complete a source review on an article of mine? I've had Maurice Suckling at ACR for a while now here, and all it's missing is a source review. Obviously happy to repay the favour at any GANs, ACRs, or FACs you have in the future if you think it's something in your wheelhouse. Thanks again, Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:02, 10 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Sure. I'll try to take a look over the next few days. --Ykraps (talk) 23:05, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the very useful source review! As you mentioned, I plan to take Suckling to FAC next. I really should try and get a ship to FAC though, for some reason it's only been biographies so far... Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 13:56, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Ping me when you have nominated for FAC and I'll see if I can be of further value. With regards to ships, I notice you have a few GAs which could be upgraded but if you're more enthusiastic about biographies, then that's fine too. Ykraps (talk) 06:25, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say I'm more enthusiastic about biographies, they just seem to often come out more "whole" than ship articles. That said, I really enjoyed writing Caroline, Beaulieu, and Resistance especially, and would hope any of them would have a chance to go higher than GA. I've now created Suckling's FAC page and if you would like to leave comments of any variety that would be greatly appreciated. Thanks again, Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 07:29, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * That was quicker than I expected. I will certainly leave some comments but may not get around to it this week. --Ykraps (talk) 20:44, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Redpole (1808)
theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 12:02, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History Project

 * Thanks. I'd totally forgotten that I'd carried out any reviews recently and had to look them up again. Nice to be noticed, and reminded. --Ykraps (talk) 07:24, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Mistaken DYK accept
You accepted Campbell's Soup I at DYK. Per WP:DYKSPLIT "Splits from non-new articles are ineligible, but if the copied text does not exceed one-fifth of the total prose size, the article can be considered eligible as a fivefold expansion of the copied text." If you look in the article history it is clear that more than one-fifth of the text was split and not original. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  02:33, 8 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Okay but short of physically counting each byte of 'copied text', that is quite a difficult thing to determine. Are you counting figures, dates, sums of money, proper nouns, quotes etc, which cannot reasonably be considered 'copied'? If you think the DYK is ineligible, I will accept your judgement but I do not think it is at all 'clear'. --Ykraps (talk) 07:17, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 5x expansion in the DYK rules refers to the prose size. A quick look at the article history then eyeballing the prose size of the copied section versus the rest of the article would make it clear that it was not eligible. If you weren't sure if the copied section was greater than one-fifth of the prose size of the article, you could said so in your review instead of passing it. Alternately, one could copy and paste the prose (displayed version) of the copied wikitext into a free online character counter and compare to the DYK tool that gives you the article's total prose size. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  14:07, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * A quick look at the edit history shows it was created with original text and not imported text from another article. It was then moved to a new title, still with wholly original text. I consider it a new article that was later expanded with material from another article. With regards to 'copied' text, as I said above, much of it is composed of proper nouns and figures, which cannot be written in any other way, and therefore cannot reasonably be described as copied. Simply comparing prose size is not sufficient. --Ykraps (talk) 20:13, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That's not what the DYK rules say, per WP:DYKPROSE: "The prose size of an article is the amount of raw text contained in the article. That includes letters, numbers, punctuation, and spaces, but should exclude wikitext, templates, lists, tables, section headers, image captions, block quotes, the table of contents, and references."


 * If you don't want to follow the DYK rules, you should not be reviewing DYK nominations. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  05:29, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:Prose is for determining the size of the article to be featured at DYK, not for determining the amount of copied text, but thanks for answering my initial query. Figures, dates, sums of money, proper nouns, are not usually considered copied and would usually be excluded from a copyvio or duplication check. It's somewhat academic however, as I consider the article to be new, for the reasons already given. --Ykraps (talk) 05:15, 11 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I think there should be an exception for splits of new content. DYK is for presenting various forms of new contents (page creations, moves from draft space, moves from AFC, GAs, moves from user sandboxes, etc.) In this case, I was actively editing a group of articles and trying to put content in places that would best enable the encyclopedia to clarify three closely related and confused subjects. In this case the copied content was new to WP and it was a matter of where to put it. I put a lot of new content at Campbell's Soup Cans, Campbell's Soup I, and Campbell's Soup Cans II. I may have put some of it in the Campbell's Soup Cans article first, but then put revised versions of similar content in the other two in the days that I was working on all three. The former article has not been on DYK I finally have a good enough understanding of the subject matter to understand the topics that are confused with each other and wanted to present them separately on WP. If within the 7 day period of newness that is relevant to DYK I put something in one article and then put similar content in another article on WP, it is not clear to me why that content is still not new. None of the three articles had ever appeared at DYK. Maybe I should run Campbell's Soup Cans through GAC, to make it eligible for DYK though since it is about 50% new (it went from 23105 characters on 9/9 to 45246 on 10/9).-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:28, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of HMS Amazon (1795)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article HMS Amazon (1795) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Pickersgill-Cunliffe -- Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:43, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Rinaldo (1808)
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of HMS Amazon (1795)
The article HMS Amazon (1795) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:HMS Amazon (1795) for comments about the article, and Talk:HMS Amazon (1795)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Pickersgill-Cunliffe -- Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 19:04, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

DYK nomination of HMS Trent (1796)
Hello! Your submission of HMS Trent (1796) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:12, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

DYK for HMS Trent (1796)
Z1720 (talk) 00:02, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Beaulieu
Hi, hope you're doing well in this new year. I'm going to be putting HMS Beaulieu up for FAC shortly, but realised I'm probably going to be asked for an explanation of what exactly a frigate is. I noticed that you've got a good summary in HMS Aigle ("Frigates of the period were three-masted..."), and wondered whether you would be OK with my using that (with attribution) for Beaulieu as well? Thanks, Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 13:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Of course! Knock yourself out. Incidently, there is a discussion about this issue at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Linking. --Ykraps (talk) 19:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC)


 * PS - is a great resource for this kind of thing. --Ykraps (talk) 19:10, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I'll look into both that discussion and the book. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 22:07, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of HMS Glenmore (1796)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article HMS Glenmore (1796) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Pickersgill-Cunliffe -- Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 13:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of HMS Trent (1796)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article HMS Trent (1796) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:44, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of HMS Trent (1796)
The article HMS Trent (1796) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:HMS Trent (1796) for comments about the article, and Talk:HMS Trent (1796)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:24, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of HMS Glenmore (1796)
The article HMS Glenmore (1796) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:HMS Glenmore (1796) for comments about the article, and Talk:HMS Glenmore (1796)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Pickersgill-Cunliffe -- Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 10:04, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Amazon-class frigate (1795)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Amazon-class frigate (1795) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:22, 7 July 2024 (UTC)